Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,058 Year: 5,315/9,624 Month: 340/323 Week: 184/160 Day: 1/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Right Side of the News
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 1525 of 5796 (851685)
04-30-2019 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1516 by Stile
04-30-2019 8:55 AM


Re: The fake news about Charlottesville answered again
Let's paint a picture.
We have an entire group of calm, respectful people.
Here are 4 calm, respectful responses to Faith;
Theodoric writes:
More evidence you are just a troll.
JonF writes:
Your guess is, as usual, bullshit.
Theodoric writes:
Classic Liar for Jesus and troll.
Tanypteryx writes:
So, I see you are still a feckless cunt and a fucking asshole.
Your picture is painted about as well as every picture liberals paint.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1516 by Stile, posted 04-30-2019 8:55 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1541 by Stile, posted 05-01-2019 10:26 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 1526 of 5796 (851686)
04-30-2019 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1524 by herebedragons
04-30-2019 2:37 PM


Re: The fake news about Charlottesville answered again
Obviously there are differences in opinion about what is right for this country, what our leadership should be like, and what direction this country should be going. However, none of these differences give you the righteous authority to hate your fellow Americans or your fellow human beings. To claim God is on the side of your hatred is nothing less than taking the Lord's name in vain.
You are right about one thing... this country has never been more polarized (at least since the Civil War), but it's not hatred and anger that is going to bring us together. You being such a righteous, holy person should realize that.
So it's okay for the left to hate, but the right can't "fight fire with fire" when it sees the need? Hate in the U.S. has been in high gear since Nov. 8th 2016, and it hasn't come from the right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1524 by herebedragons, posted 04-30-2019 2:37 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1527 by JonF, posted 04-30-2019 7:54 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 1530 by herebedragons, posted 04-30-2019 9:26 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 1528 of 5796 (851688)
04-30-2019 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1464 by PaulK
04-28-2019 2:55 PM


Re: The fake news about Charlottesville answered again
From an article cited in another thread.
quote:
"When asked by reporters on Friday if he stood by the comments, Trump responded: “I’ve answered that question and if you look at what I said you will see that that question was answered perfectly, and I was talking about people that went [to the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally] because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee, a great [Confederate] general.”
So racists become “very fine people” if they stand up for the statue of a racist who fought for slavery. Seems like the “perfect” answer - to support what we’ve been saying.
This is very telling about today's Democrat party. Do you know what Lee's views were on slavery?
quote:
Lee held slavery to be an evil institution
and;
quote:
Lee in his well-known analysis of slavery from an 1856 letter called it a moral and political evil.
Robert E. Lee - Wikipedia
Let me guess, you don't care. All the civil war was, was a fight between those who loved slavery and those who disagreed with it, and that's the end of it as far as you're concerned, right?
The war was much more complex than that. To pretend it wasn't, to pretend that you know what the mindset of people was back in those days is typical of the knee-jerk thinking that is increasingly going on with liberals. Lee seems to have believed that if slavery was slowly phased out by the free will of the largely Christian mindset of those days, and increasing technology in the uses of steel and machines, that the transition away from it could be much smoother than new laws passed and ending it abruptly. He knew that many of the suddenly freed slaves wouldn't know what to do with themselves. That problem was very clear in the decades following the war, and the problem isn't completely gone today.
It's not fair to say that Lee was ~one of~ the most prominent, respected people involved in the southern cause. He was THE MOST prominent respectful person of the south in that war. You might want to check out his many accomplishments in the above Wikipedia link. My elementary school history book portrayed him as a decent man, and I even happen to have a close-by, personal reference to him. And that reference agrees perfectly with the picture most good history books paint of him. My great-grandfather was a boy in Maryland during that war, his father was a staunch Union supporter, he was a guide for one of the union armies. Yet here is what my great-grandfather said about Lee;
quote:
"Gen. Lee was at Austin Poffenbarger's house where he made his headquarters. Austin and my father were friends and neighbors. Us boys wanted to see what Gen. Lee looked like, so we went over there. That's another time I won't ever forget.
"Gen. Lee came out in the yard to talk to us. I thought then that I had never seen such a handsome man and I'm sure I haven't since; at least not one who made the impression on me that Lee did.
"The general talked to us kindly, asked us about our schools and our farms and warned us to keep out of danger. It didn't make any difference to us boys whether our fathers were Unionists or Confederates; Gen. Lee was a hero to us.
My great-grandfather died before I was born, but Message 727 (another thread from awhile back) explains where I got this from. If there'd have been a black boy in that group, do you think Lee would have said the same thing? That he wouldn't have wanted to see a 10 year old black boy killed in crossfire any more than he would have wanted it to happen to one of those white boys? Just how hate-filled and distorted is your view of him?
If you don't care about any of this, if you just close your eyes and hold your ears and call him a racist, then what you're doing is calling pretty much half of the U.S. racist, as it was 155 / 160 years ago. Does that mean the ENTIRE U.S. was racist in 1820, or 1830? As Trump referred in the video Faith put up a few dozen messages back, does that mean George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were racists too, since they owned slaves?
Trump and other Republicans often claim how much they love and respect their country. But when liberals claim they do as well, it just doesn't go along with the disrespect they show for it's history and it's prominent historical figures.
The point of all this? There really were "fine people" in Charlottesville defending the statue, and Trump really wasn't a racist by saying it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1464 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2019 2:55 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1532 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2019 12:30 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 1529 of 5796 (851689)
04-30-2019 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1527 by JonF
04-30-2019 7:54 PM


Re: The fake news about Charlottesville answered again
At least Faith is honest enough to admit she hates so many people
And it would be really nice if the 12 haters against her here were that honest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1527 by JonF, posted 04-30-2019 7:54 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1531 by Theodoric, posted 04-30-2019 9:58 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 1536 by Faith, posted 05-01-2019 3:15 AM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 1564 of 5796 (851774)
05-01-2019 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1530 by herebedragons
04-30-2019 9:26 PM


Re: The fake news about Charlottesville answered again
I don't care what "side" they are on. If they claim to be TRUE Christians then they have no business spewing hate - regardless of their political views. If those who claim to be atheists are hating, I can't very well quote scripture to reprimand them can I? But if you associate yourself with Christ, then you should be held to a higher standard (or at least to the standard that Christ taught).
I remember you from a few years back, you're a pretty good poster and I appreciate it.
I think there is a big difference in Christian standards when the subject is a one on one, personal conflict between a Christian and another person, versus expressing opinions about differing societal ideologies. There's no way to define just where the line is between "hate", and "strong opposition" to a differing political view. That's why the liberals are having such a hard time with Faith's posts. They also don't understand how tough, and challenging it is to defend ones views against a group of 10 to 15 people, but I've been there and I understand it very well. There's not a liberal poster here who would last one hour against a group of 10 or 15 concise, polite conservatives. If they think I'm wrong about that, I'd invite them to link me to proof of that.
It's true that Democrats/liberals don't agree with Trump when it comes to environmental standards, tax cuts, immigration, foreign relations etc., but it's impossible not to see their hatred of him personally, whether it's in places like these forums or mainstream news reports. It's partly understandable, the news media is used to people like Reagan, or Bush 41 or 43, who just used to smile and get red in the face and take their insults and do their best to answer their stupid questions. They resent Trump's bluntness to them. It helps them to somewhat, or completely forget about what's good for the country, and makes getting even with him personally their top priority.
I find myself holding views that are more and more considered liberal, such as protection of the environment, social justice, gun control, health care available for all, and I place a high value on education and individual freedoms. I am not filled with hate, but I am increasingly seeing "conservative values" as very much un-Christian.
It's impossible to have "protection of the environment" as described by a self-serving government, without a loss of individual freedom. It's impossible to have "social justice" (redistribution of earnings by a self serving government) without a loss of the individual freedoms of those who earn those confiscated earnings. History always has shown BIG losses of individual freedoms when a self serving government wants only itself to have guns. You seem to desire utopia in an imperfect world. And trust the government to make it happen. And there's seldom an option to turn it all back if it doesn't work.
And yes, I think Trump is an absolutely terrible president and human being and he will certainly not be receiving my vote in 2020... but that's not hate. It's standing up for what I believe is right.
The main factor that the U.S. seems to use to determine if a president is doing a good job is the economy. I think a lot of voters that voted against him in 2016 will be voting for him in 2020 for that reason alone. I'm also seeing evidence that those voters who voted against him in 2016 are getting tired of the witch-hunts against him. What has the Democrat majority in the house accomplished since they took over? Nothing at all, other than attacks against Trump. CNN, and other mainstream news outlets don't even seem to make a secret of the fact that attacking Trump are more important to them than actually reporting news. I've no doubt that some organization, or individual like George Soros, has dangled a major cash prize in front of any Democrat or journalist who can make THE significant contribution to ending his presidency before 4 years is up. They all just keep trying and failing, and the anger builds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1530 by herebedragons, posted 04-30-2019 9:26 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1573 by herebedragons, posted 05-02-2019 11:08 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 1577 by JonF, posted 05-02-2019 12:18 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 1565 of 5796 (851776)
05-01-2019 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1532 by PaulK
05-01-2019 12:30 AM


Re: The fake news about Charlottesville answered again
No, the American Civil War was primarily a fight between those wishing to preserve slavery versus those wishing to preserve the Union.
Primarily yes, but it wasn't that simple. The North at that time seems to have been very similar to the sanctuary cities of today. They wanted slavery to end suddenly, but they didn't want to deal with all the problems it would cause. Most slaves were in the south, and they wanted only the south to deal with the aftermath. Just like today's sanctuary cities, they want illegals to come to the U.S. but they don't want to deal with too many of them. Trump made that clear when he offered to bus all the illegals he could to sanctuary cities, and then we all watched them cry about that. Contrary to politically correct beliefs, the North, in 1865, wasn't all lovie dovie at the thought of newly freed blacks running around in their cities. There is evidence of RACISM toward blacks in northern cities, by businesses and politicians, for 70, 80, 90 years after the civil war ended. Would you like to see a little of that evidence?
And I note that you don’t seem interested in accurately presenting Lee’s views.
There's nothing in those paragraphs that changes the brief summaries I posted about Lee's views.
quote:
Several historians have noted the paradoxical nature of Lee's beliefs and actions concerning race and slavery.
It's "paradoxical" only because it's not possible for anyone today to go back in time and understand that generation's views of the world, when they couldn't see how the future would play out.
Who says that I called him racist for his position on slavery?
PaulK writes:
So racists become “very fine people” if they stand up for the statue of a racist who fought for slavery.
YOU DID, IN Message 1464 I LOVE THIS PLACE!
quote:
Lee accepted "the extinction of slavery" provided for by the Thirteenth Amendment, but publicly opposed racial equality and granting African Americans the right to vote and other political rights.
But I guess you don’t care about that,
I largely don't because 80 years later, business leaders and politicians in northern cities were fine with not admitting blacks to many movie theaters and restaurants. But since they were from the north, I guess they weren't racists.
Loving your country doesn’t mean loving every prominent person in its history.
But it means respecting the views of others in your country who don't want traditional, time honored monuments to be torn down because of nothing more than emotional whims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1532 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2019 12:30 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1567 by AZPaul3, posted 05-01-2019 10:48 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 1568 by PaulK, posted 05-02-2019 12:13 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 1571 by herebedragons, posted 05-02-2019 10:05 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 1575 by Chiroptera, posted 05-02-2019 11:40 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 1578 by AZPaul3, posted 05-02-2019 1:06 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 1566 of 5796 (851778)
05-01-2019 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1541 by Stile
05-01-2019 10:26 AM


Re: The fake news about Charlottesville answered again
Why would you say that?
Because you made a false statement, and got busted for it.
Although they do seem calm, they do not seem to all be respectful.
So you now agree that your statement was FALSE? Let's look at it again;
quote:
We have an entire group of calm, respectful people.
And, just so I don't cherry-pick like you did
"Cherry picking" is not the issue, if you claim an entire group of people to be calm and respectful, it only takes one example of one of them going into an emotional, profanity laced rant that would make an Origin-of-Species thumping middle school child blush, to make your statement 100% false. You don't agree? Can we say that Jeffery Dahmer was an absolutely fine person because it was only a comparative few minutes of his several million minute long life where he killed and ate people? Does one of your calm, respectful people get a pass just because he lost his calmness and respectfulness just for one sentence?
I leave it to the floor to decide which one is a more accurate picture painted of the reality that's occurred.
"The floor"? A floor that consists of nothing more than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's base?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1541 by Stile, posted 05-01-2019 10:26 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1569 by Stile, posted 05-02-2019 8:47 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 1570 by Theodoric, posted 05-02-2019 9:50 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 1598 of 5796 (851845)
05-03-2019 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1568 by PaulK
05-02-2019 12:13 AM


Re: The fake news about Charlottesville answered again
No. The North wasn’t determined to end slavery immediately, even in the early stages of the war. That’s implicit in the fact that the North wasn’t fighting to end slavery. Slavery was under pressure and would have had to end eventually, but a phasing out of slavery was still possible. But the Confederacy wouldn’t accept an end at all.
What the North's intentions were undoubtedly varied greatly among northerners in the times leading up to, and in the early stages of the war. I believe the general consensus of the North WAS to end slavery as quickly as possible, considering their aggression in starting the war (they fired the first shots, in southern territory) and the following Emancipation Proclamation and 13th amendment. And my point is that that is ALL the North was concerned with, they showed little if any concern about how the suddenly freed slaves were supposed to fit in to society at that time. While society at that time was primitive compared to today, it was more complex than the African areas where most of the slaves came from. (largely against their will)
(The alleged parallel to “sanctuary cities” seems odd, too. Surely by encouraging illegal immigrants to live in their jurisdiction, they are inviting any problems the illegal immigrants being with them and will have to deal with them)
The implication of sanctuary cities is that illegals don't have problems, that they seeking a better life, seeking to do jobs that Americans aren't willing to do, will be almost nothing but a benefit to their cities. Their sudden realization that too many of them could cause them unforeseen problems, is them admitting something they've probably known all along, that there are good reasons for immigration laws. But San Francisco for example, wants as many of them as possible in the country for their votes, but they'd rather others far from them, in border towns, deal with their illiteracy and all their problems. Democrats will get their votes, that's the only thing sanctuary cities want from immigrants.
All the North seemed to want was for recently immigrated blacks to not be slaves, yet they expected the South to deal with their likely problems in adjusting to life in the U.S. Yet the problem was much more minor with those freed slaves than it is today with illegal immigration. There was no free stuff in those days, and no political party was constantly calling for it.
The “sanctuary cities” are obviously dealing with their share of the problems. Why should they want additional problems foisted on them?
Forcing them to finally admit that illegal immigration DOES have problems is a big first step, thank you Trump.
Any such evidence would be irrelevant to my position. Of course there were racists everywhere.
If there were "racists everywhere", then it makes sense (160 years later) to attempt to either get even with all of them, or none of them. If we can't do anything to the arrogant business owners in northern cites who refused to admit blacks into their businesses as late as 1950, then we don't need to attempt to get even with Robert E. Lee and all those today who have an admiration for him.
Why would anyone today have an admiration for Robert E. Lee? My guess is that most soldiers during that war were far more concerned with their own skin than they were with 11 or 12 year old boys blundering onto a battlefield and getting killed. I'd guess that Lee had other things to think about when he saw those boys gathered outside his headquarters. I don't think his questions about "their schools and farms" was high on his list of things to know. He was taking a little time to gain their admiration and respect, so they'd listen to him when he warned them to "stay out of danger". It means something to me, and I don't see a knowledge or interest of U.S. history when I see people just refer to him as a racist and want to rip his memorials down and try to erase history.
If there were "racists everywhere", and none of us can thoroughly understand what times were like back then, maybe accusations of racism of past generations isn't appropriate, in going so far as stirring up conflict by removing monuments that some people don't want removed. Why can't some things be left alone?
As has been pointed out, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Is there a timeline when THEIR memorials come down? Is that future time a secret, of does it happen at the whim of some future gangs of angry Democrats?
We can all see that the quote simply describes Lee as”a racist who fought for slavery”.
And that quote shows nothing more than a sloppy generalization, and lack of interest in actual American history.
I guess you don’t care about making sense either. That other people of the time were racist - and apparently less racist than Lee - hardly makes Lee less racist.
Apparently to whom? The black racists that are so vocal in the U.S. today? To Jussie Smollett?
Since you clearly don’t respect the views of those who want the statue removed - and since respecting contrary views doesn’t mean giving in to them - you don’t have a point here, either.
My point is that memorials were put into place in the past, by people who were closer to those moments in history than we are. My point is that if changing something for the sake of change creates conflict, then LEAVE IT ALONE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1568 by PaulK, posted 05-02-2019 12:13 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1601 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2019 9:10 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 1618 by JonF, posted 05-03-2019 2:56 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 1599 of 5796 (851848)
05-03-2019 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1569 by Stile
05-02-2019 8:47 AM


Re: The fake news about Charlottesville answered again
I think you've lost it.
Perhaps you should take a moment, calm down, and try to re-assess the situation.
I would suggest putting the shovel down. You're deep enough.
Hellllooooooo down there!!!!!!!!! If I have a shovel, you're on the world's biggest excavator, and you're halfway to China!
I have no idea what it's like to post as part of a gang of 10 or 15 people, to mercilessly hammer on one person of another view, being part of a group constantly stumbling and falling over each other trying to cover for, prop up, come at the person from several directions etc. I wouldn't feel the need to do it, I'm confident enough in my own position to depend on myself. But I see that some members of those groups are sometimes too frantic to carefully enough read what their allies say, then make a laughable generalization about how well they all work together! Hahahaha
I'm sure you clearly see what you did, and you might even try to avoid it in the future. But I'm not expecting any miracles on that front either. So I'll leave you alone now, go ahead and fire up that excavator and enjoy your last word. I'm sure your helpers will support you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1569 by Stile, posted 05-02-2019 8:47 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1608 by ringo, posted 05-03-2019 12:06 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 1696 by Stile, posted 05-06-2019 1:11 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 1600 of 5796 (851850)
05-03-2019 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1570 by Theodoric
05-02-2019 9:50 AM


Re: The fake news about Charlottesville answered again
marc9000 writes:
"The floor"? A floor that consists of nothing more than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's base?
This comment continues to show your dishonesty an unwillingness to hff Ave a substantive debate. When you actually want to discuss the issues with facts and data, please do. Until then you are not worth even reading.
That's strange, I've seen more than once on these forums people who are not extreme left wing Democrats refer to ANYONE else as "Trump's base". I don't agree with everything Trump says - is there anything that AOC says that you disagree with? I can't imagine what it would be.
Here's something Trump said that I don't agree with, he said that no future president should have to put up with a witch-hunt investigation like he did. I don't agree, it there's something questionable about any Democrat president, it should be gone after by Republicans with the same passion that Democrats did with Trump. For example, I'm sure many to Republicans wish there would have been a 2 year investigation on just where Obama was born. All the mystery and secrecy concerning his birth certificate should have been clearly exposed. I wish it would have happened, I'd really like to know if his miserable presidency was 100% unconstitutional. If so, I'd like to see the 3 story high mural of him in a downtown Cincinnati ghetto painted over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1570 by Theodoric, posted 05-02-2019 9:50 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 1602 of 5796 (851852)
05-03-2019 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1571 by herebedragons
05-02-2019 10:05 AM


Re: The fake news about Charlottesville answered again
Trump didn't "offer" he threatened. The objection was to using human beings (vulnerable people at that) as pawns in a political debate to punish sanctuary cities for defying him.
"Using human beings as pawns", that's a pretty ironic accusation.
It really was a disgusting ploy and it is hard for me to believe you support such nonsense...
When Bill Clinton's EPA director mandated that certain areas in certain states implement auto emission testing 20 years ago, (crippling and destroying the lives of many working U.S. citizens) those states were informed that if they ignored federal law, they would lose certain federal funding. Yet today, when some cities declare themselves sanctuary cities (in comparable, identical) violation of federal law, they don't seem to receive those threats. I guess the EPA has more supreme power than other government agencies. Maybe something can be done about that during the Trump administration.
P.S. I'll try to get to your following message later, if this thread isn't closed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1571 by herebedragons, posted 05-02-2019 10:05 AM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1619 by JonF, posted 05-03-2019 3:03 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 1663 of 5796 (851980)
05-05-2019 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1573 by herebedragons
05-02-2019 11:08 AM


Re: The fake news about Charlottesville answered again
Have you ever heard of externalization? This is when a portion of the cost of producing a good or service is put on a third party without their consent.
"Without their consent", and often also, without their objection. Governments shouldn't have free reign to be the sole judges of when the third party is objecting. And the U.S. government doesn't, according to the 9th and 10th amendments.
I had a boss that told me he used to dump all his used coolants into the river out behind the building. It would have cost him $1000s to dispose of them properly, but instead he put that cost on the communities that surround the river. Sure he was able to maximize his profit and sell his product at the lowest price possible... but at what cost to others who did not agree to bear the cost of producing his goods?
That's an individual, one-on-one case that should be decided on an individual basis. What often figures in on cases like that though, is that the owner knows it only costs $500's to "dispose of it properly", while the other $500's goes into some special interest's pocket, like a politician or bureaucrat. Individual cases like that are much less controversial than others concerning freedoms, like all-encompassing auto emissions testing for example. (4th amendment)
Sure we can have cheap energy, but at what cost to third parties? Do coal miners agree to contract black lung when they take the job? Do we all agree to destroy our natural landscapes to allow the cheapest extraction of resources as possible? Do cities agree to smog and air pollution in order for factories to produce goods at the lowest cost possible?
People, not government should decide these issues. 10th amendment again.
We don't agree to those things. One role of government is to protect the freedoms of the many from the freedoms of individuals. I think a good example is public smoking. I respect the rights of individuals to smoke, but when I go into a restaurant and the people at the table next to me are smoking, I am forced to share in that - without my consent (some may say I give consent by going to the restaurant, but there is nothing inherent about going to a restaurant that implies partaking in cigarette smoke). Fortunately, our state legislature decided to protect the communities right to go to public spaces and not smoke over the individuals right to smoke. People who smoke may not agree with my assessment here, and may feel like their individual freedoms have been restricted, but communities need to find this balance between individual freedoms and the freedoms of the community as a whole. People are still free to smoke, just not where it compromises other's freedom to not smoke.
I've sure been on both sides of that issue, I used to smoke and I loved it. Now I'm old and I've quit and am less tolerant of smoke. Smokers and non-smokers used to be able to coexist - the tolerance went both ways. Maybe smokers started not caring who they bothered, maybe non-smokers were jealous of them enjoying it. Probably a combination of both.
Anyone gets in my car with me and wants to smoke, and I say "sure, just put your window down a little and be considerate. I'll live".
Given a free hand, corporations will, without a doubt, externalize as much of the cost of producing their goods as possible to third parties. History proves that. Thus it is a major role of government to protect the public from excessive externalization. The BIG LIE of conservatives is that free markets will self correct and eliminate exploitation of these third parties.
Free markets aren't perfect. But in most cases, they self correct better than a government that has less accountability for it's actions. Governments by nature, don't have the accountability for their actions that those in free markets do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1573 by herebedragons, posted 05-02-2019 11:08 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 1664 of 5796 (851985)
05-05-2019 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1575 by Chiroptera
05-02-2019 11:40 AM


Re: We're still talking as if pro-slavery was a legitimate position?
Well, aside from the historical fact that "suddenly ending slavery" was a minority position - and a very unpopular one at that, even in the North
What's your source for that historical fact? The Emancipation Proclamation and 13th amendment are historical facts too - well documented ones.
- I'm kind of curious:
What problems would have resulted from human beings no longer being property that would have justified continuing to deny a large number of human beings basic human dignity?
The problems of not being able to support themselves. Just how cruel and mean slave owners were, or how much that cruelty varied among slave owners is impossible to measure, today or back then, but slaves did have one thing, a secure place to live and work. There might not have been many, but there were at least a few black people who wore Confederate uniforms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1575 by Chiroptera, posted 05-02-2019 11:40 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1688 by Chiroptera, posted 05-06-2019 10:23 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 1665 of 5796 (851986)
05-05-2019 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1585 by herebedragons
05-02-2019 3:27 PM


Re: The fake news about Charlottesville answered again
I could understand it if the response was "he's better than the alternatives" but that's not it.
That IS it, plain and simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1585 by herebedragons, posted 05-02-2019 3:27 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 1666 of 5796 (851987)
05-05-2019 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1601 by PaulK
05-03-2019 9:10 AM


Re: The fake news about Charlottesville answered again
marc9000 writes:
As has been pointed out, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Is there a timeline when THEIR memorials come down? Is that future time a secret, of does it happen at the whim of some future gangs of angry Democrats?
I think that the fact that they are being honoured for other achievements puts their statues in a better light.
For now. What keeps it from changing later? One of the more notable moments of the recent State of the Union speech by Trump was when he said "The U.S. will never become a socialist country". In the mostly fanfare nature of State of the Union speeches, any vague, honeyed statement by the president always gets polite applause from the vice president, and speaker of the house seated behind him. In that case, Pelosi sat silent. It wasn't just her personally who sat silent, she was representing millions of her constituents with that action. Her and those millions don't have any more respect for Washington and Jefferson than they do for Lee.
Mural of George Washington May Be Removed Because It 'Traumatizes Students'
quote:
The group recommended having the mural, which includes numerous panels that make up the “Life of Washington,” removed because the artwork “glorifies oppression instead of eliminating it” and “has nothing to do with equity or inclusion at all.”
Do you agree with this?
That certainly wasn’t your original point. And I don’t think you believe it. Trump’s wall is certainly a change that is creating conflict - but I bet you are all for it.
Trump's wall isn't a "change". We've always had a southern border. It's merely a method for increasing security in an increasingly insecure area.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1601 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2019 9:10 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1668 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2019 5:19 PM marc9000 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024